Methods of Expressing Deontic Modality in English and Polish Statutory Instruments

(1)

Comparative

Legilinguistics

I n s t i t u t e o f L i n g u i s t i c s

A d a m M i c k i e w i c z U n i v e r s i t y

P o z n a ń , P o l a n d

Volume 1/2009

International Journal for Legal

Communication

(2)

INSTITUTE OF LINGUISTICS LABORATORY OF LEGILINGUISTICS www.lingualegis.amu.edu.pl lingua.legis@gmail.com

KOMITET REDAKCYJNY/EDITORIAL BOARD Editor-in-chief: Jerzy Bańczerowski Co-editor: Aleksandra Matulewska

Sekretarze/Assistants: Karolina Gortych, Joanna Grzybek, Karolina Kaczmarek, Paweł Korcz, Joanna Nowak, Paulina Nowak-Korcz

Członkowie/Members: Łucja Biel, Susan Blackwell, Olga Burukina, Artur Kubacki, Peter Sandrini, Iwona Witczak-Plisiecka, Feliks Zedler

Comparative Legilinguistics ukazuje się raz w roku. Zamieszcza artykuły, recenzje, sprawozdania w językach: angielskim, francuskim, niemieckim i rosyjskim.

Redakcja zastrzega sobie prawo recenzowania nadsyłanych materiałów. Comparative Legilinguistics is published once a year. It contains articles, reviews and

reports in English, French, German and Russian.

Th e editorial board reserves the right to publish selected articles without external review.

Adres Redakcji/Editorial Offi ce Instytut Językoznawstwa Pracownia Legilingwistyki Al. Niepodległości 4, pok. 218B

61-874 Poznań, Poland legilinguistics@gmail.com

Wydanie publikacji dofi nansował Instytut Językoznawstwa

Th e issue has been published with fi nancial grant from the Institute of Linguistics, Poland.

Copyright by Institute of Linguistics

Printed in Poland ISBN … ISSN … Nakład …. Egz. Redakcja i skład Druk:

(3)

METHODS OF EXPRESSING DEONTIC

MODALITY IN ENGLISH AND POLISH

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS IN THE ASPECT OF

TRANSLATION

Abstract: Th is paper deals with the methods of expressing deontic modality in statutory instruments. Th e author analyzes three pure meanings that is to say; (i) obligation, (ii) prohibition and (iii) permission. Within those three meanings three sub-meanings are distinguished. Within the meaning of obligation, the author distinguishes the following sub-meanings: (i) unlimited duty, (ii) conditional duty, and (iii) external duty. Within the meaning of prohibition the following three sub-meanings may be distinguished: (i) unlimited prohibition, (ii) conditional prohibition, and (iii) external prohibition. Within the meaning of permission we have distinguished three sub-meanings: (i) unlimited permission, (ii) conditional permission, and (iii) external permission. Th e exponents of deontic modality are presented in the tables and compared in order to show potential translation equivalents.

Introduction

Th is paper deals with the methods of expressing deontic modality that is to say obligation, prohibition and permission in Polish and English statutory instruments.

Purpose of research

Th e purpose of this research is to provide answers to questions related to possible translation equivalents for pure modal meanings and sub-meanings of deontic modality in English and Polish. Th e author presents typical lexical and grammatical means of expressing obligation, prohibition and permis-sion in English and Polish statutory instruments.

(6)

134 Aleksandra Matulewska

Analysed corpora

Th e author has analysed the following Polish statutory instruments: (i) Polish Civil Code of 1964, (ii) Polish Code of Civil Procedure of 1964 as amended, (iii) Polish Code of Labour, (iv) Polish Code of Commercial Companies. Th e Polish corpora consisted of approximately 1000 standard pages altogether.

Th e English corpora included: Louisiana Civil Code (1275 pages), Uni-form Commercial Code (about 503 pages), Childcare Act 2006 (about 67 pages), and Law of Property Act 1925 (about 32 pages).

Method used

Th e research method utilized in this study included the analysis of paral-lel documents of statutory instruments in Polish and English (British and American ones).

Deontic modality in statutory instruments – pure modal

meanings

Deontic modality ‘odnosi się do świata norm i ocen i dotyczy działań człowieka, które z woli indywidualnego lub zbiorowego sprawcy są mu nakazane lub dozwolone [refers to the world of norms and judgments and it relates to the actions of people which at the will of an individual or collective actor are imposed on him or permitted to be performed by him]’ (Jędrzejko 1987: 19).

Having analyzed the corpora in Polish and English we may distinguish three pure modal meanings present in statutory instruments:

(i) obligation, (ii) prohibition, and (iii) permission.

Within these three pure modal meanings, we may distinguish at least three modal sub-meanings.

Statutory obligation

Statutory obligation is ‘an obligation – whether to pay money, perform

(7)

Methods of Expressing Deontic Modality in English and Polish Statutory Instruments… 135

rather than based on an independent contractual or legal relationship’ (Black’s Law Dictionary 2004:1105).

As it has already been mentioned within the meaning of obligation, we can distinguish the following sub-meanings:

(i) Unlimited duty understood here as an obligation to perform which is binding no matter the situation.

(ii) Conditional duty which is understood here as an obligation to perform only in specifi c circumstances.

(iii) External duty that is an obligation to perform imposed on the actor not by the legislator but by other factors such as contracts, agreements, etc.

Due to grammatical reasons, we may distinguish diff erent methods of expressing deontic modality with the actor revealed and not revealed in the sentence surface structure. Th e fact that the actor is not revealed in the sentence structure does not mean that he is not known. As a rule, he may be identifi ed via the context. Additionally, in the case of Polish utterances in which the actor is not revealed in the sentence structure, we may oft en encounter impersonal structures, where the English passive voice is usually used.

In order to present the results of the research in a succinct way, the methods of expressing pure modal meanings and sub-meanings have been gathered in the tables below. Th e words and expressions given in inverted commas next to Polish exponents are literal translations and are presented here to show potential translation problems which may occur when they are translated literally by translation trainees. On the other hand, English and Polish expressions given without inverted comas may be treated as dynamic equivalents for the purpose of legal translation of exponents of deontic modality in statutory instruments.

(8)

Obligation

(i) Unlimited duty

English Polish

actor revealed

(i) Shall (ii) Is obliged to

(iii) (although must and is required

to are possible they are very rare)

(i) Jest obowiązany ‘is obliged’ (ii) Wymaga ‘requires’ (iii) Powinien ‘should’ (iv) Ma obowiązek ‘has a duty’

(v) Należy do obowiązków‘is the duty of ’

(vi) Present tense indicative (including: obowiązek ciąży/obciąża ‘the duty burdens sb’)

(vii) Future tense indicative

actor not revealed

(i) Shall (ii) Must (iii) Is binding (iv) Binds (v) is to be done

(i) Jest wymagane ‘is required’ (ii) Wymaga ‘requires’

(iii) Musi ‘must’ + passive voice

(iv) Należy + infi nitive and Należy się ‘should’ (v) Powinien ‘should’

(vi) Present tense indicative (including obowiązek obejmuje ‘the duty includes’)

(ii) Conditional duty

English Polish actor revealed (i) Shall (ii) Must (iii) Is obliged to (iv) Is to be done by (v) Is required to (vi) x is bound by (vii) y is binding for x (viii) y binds x

(i) Jest obowiązany ‘is obliged’ (ii) Wymaga ‘requires’ (iii) Należy do ‘…..’ (iv) Powinien ‘should’ (v) Ma obowiązek ‘has a duty’

(vi) Present tense indicative (including: obowiązek ciąży/obciąża ‘the duty burdens sb’, obowiązek spoczywa ‘the duty burdens sb’)

(i) Shall (ii) Must

(iii) Is to be done by (iv) Is required to be done

(i) Wymaga ‘requires’

(ii) Musi ‘must’ + passive voice or Musi + infi nitive mieć ‘have’

(iii) Należy ‘should’ and Należy się ‘should’ (iv) Present tense indicative (including: obowiązek obejmuje ‘the duty includes’)

(9)

(iii) External duty

actor revealed

(i) is to be to (ii) is obliged to

(i) jest zobowiązany ‘is obliged to’

no examples found no examples found

Although we may encounter the same methods of expressing deontic modality in both British and American statutes, some of these methods are more oft en used in American statutes while others are common in British statutes. In the analyzed English material, the following exponents of deontic modality have been found: (i) shall; (ii) is obliged to; (iii) must and (iv) is required to. Th e expression is required to is the rarest. Th e most frequently used one is still the modal verb shall, and the second most frequent is must. It is worth noting that recently must is becoming more popular in statutory instruments, especially in the USA. Th is is most likely due to the recommendations included in the ABC rule and the US Code Construction Act, Chapter 311, Government Code. Th e ABC rule has been advocated by some American, British and Canadian draft ers who have pointed out that shall is used in multiple meanings making the construction of legal documents, including statutes, very diffi cult and disputable. Th is is especially true in that some of those meanings are not deontic, but rather epistemic (as we would formulate it from the linguistic point of view). Th e US Code Construction Act, Chapter 311, Government Code, on the other hand, gives specifi c directions as to the usage of modals and their meanings:

‘Sec. 311.016. “MAY,” “SHALL,” “MUST,” ETC. Th e following construc-tions apply unless the context in which the word or phrase appears neces-sarily requires a diff erent construction or unless a diff erent construction is expressly provided by statute:

(1) “May” creates discretionary authority or grants permission or a power.

(2) “Shall” imposes a duty.

(3) “Must” creates or recognizes a condition precedent. (4) “Is entitled to” creates or recognizes a right.

(5) “May not” imposes a prohibition and is synonymous with “shall not.” (6) “Is not entitled to” negates a right.

(10)

(7) “Is not required to” negates a duty or condition precedent.’

Th ere are also passive structures (shall be done by sb) or structures with adjectives (shall be exercisable, shall be admissible, etc) which are used when the agent on whom the duty is imposed is not the subject of the sentence but is given aft er the predicate.

We may also encounter deontic expressions such as: is to be done, is binding, is bound, binds. Th e deontic expressions is obliged to, is required to do not occur in unconditional sentences without revealing the agent in the sentence surface structure.

In the analyzed Polish material, the deontic meaning of the obligation may be expressed in a descriptive utterance without any exponent of deontic modality, that is to say (i) present tense indicative and (ii) future tense indicative. Th e function of the deontic exponent is realized with indicative mood by the non-modal fi nite or non-fi nite verb in present or future tense. Th e normative character of such utterances results from the pragmatic situation. In other words, the statutory instrument is obligatory in its nature. It should be noted here that in the majority of cases the semantic equivalence occurs among the units bearing the modal meaning of obligation. Sometimes there are strengthened structures with present tense indicative such as the present tense indicative + noun obowiązek ‘duty, obligation’ e.g. obowiązek ciąży/ obciąża ‘the duty burdens sb’.’ (Kaczmarek, Matulewska, Wiatrowski 2008).

Th e deontic meaning of the duty of the person obliged to perform it not revealed in the surface structure may be expressed by: (i) jest wymagane ‘is required’; (ii) wymaga ‘requires’; (iii) musi ‘must’ + passive voice; (iv) należy + infi nitive and należy się ‘should’; (v) powinien ‘should’; (v) present tense indicative; (vi) future tense indicative. It should be stressed here that the most frequent exponents of the imposed duty are impersonal, non-deontic verbs in present or future tense, and impersonal modals or modal expressions of the grammatical structure which does not reveal the person on which the duty is imposed in the surface structure. We may also encounter strengthened structures with present tense indicative and the noun obowiązek ‘duty, obligation’ e.g. obowiązek obejmuje ‘the duty includes sb’.

What is interesting is the fact that the most typical exponent of obligation in colloquial and literary language (musieć) has not occurred in the whole corpus under scrutiny despite the fact that it is enumerated as one of the methods of expressing deontic modality by the draft ers of statutory instruments and lawyers (Wronkowska, Zieliński1993, 1997).

(11)

Statury Prohibition

Prohibition is defi ned as ‘a duty to refrain from acting’ (Garner 2001:609). Th at is to say it is an obligation not to do something.

Within the meaning of Prohibition the following three sub-meanings may be distinguished:

(i) Unlimited prohibition which is understood here as the prohibition to perform which is binding no matter the situation.

(ii) Conditional prohibition which is understood here as the prohibition to perform only in specifi c circumstances.

(iii) External prohibition which is understood here as the prohibition to perform imposed on the actor, not by the legislator, but by other factors such as e.g. contracts, agreements.

(i) Unlimited prohibition

actor revealed

(i) Shall not (ii) Must not (UK) (iii) May not (iv) Cannot (USA) (v) Is prohibited

(i) Nie ‘not’ + powinien ‘should’ (ii) Nie ‘not’ + present tense indicative (iii) Nie ‘not’ + future tense indicative (iv) Nie móc ‘may not’

(v) Nie jest uprawniony ‘is not entitled’ (vi) Nie ma prawa ‘has no right’

(vii) Niedopuszczalne jest (jest niedopuszczalne, nie jest dopuszczalne) ‘is not admissible, is not permissible’

(i) Shall not (ii) Must not (UK) (iii) May not (iv) Cannot (USA) (v) Is prohibited

(i) Nie ‘not’ + powinno ‘should’ (ii) Nie ‘not’ + należy ‘should’

(iii) Nie ‘not’ + present tense indicative (usually passive)

(iv) Nie ‘not’ + future tense indicative (usually passive) (v) Nie można ‘may not’

(vi) Nie wolno ‘must not’

(vii) Niedopuszczalne jest (jest niedopuszczalne, nie jest dopuszczalne) ‘is not admissible, is not permissible’

(12)

(ii) Conditional prohibition

actor revealed

(i) Shall not (ii) Must not (UK) (iii) May not (iv) Cannot (USA)

(i) Nie ‘not’ + present tense indicative (ii) Nie ‘not’ + future tense indicative (iii) Nie może ‘may not’

(iv) Nie ma prawa ‘has no right’ (v) Nie wolno ‘must not’

(vi) Nie jest dopuszczalne ‘is not admissible, is not permissible’

(i) Shall not (ii) Must not (UK) (iii) May not (iv) Cannot (USA)

(i) Nie ‘not’ + present tense indicative (ii) Nie ‘not’ + future tense indicative (iii) Nie może ‘may not’

(iv) Nie można ‘may not’ (v) Nie wolno ‘must not’

(vi) Nie jest dopuszczalne ‘is not admissible, is not permissible’

(iii) External prohibition

actor revealed

is prohibited wydać zakaz ‘impose the prohibition’

prohibition być zakazanym ‘be prohibited’

In English, prohibitive clauses with the deontic meaning have been expressed by: (i) shall not and (ii) must not (UK) as well as not so frequent clauses (iii) may not; (iv) cannot (USA) and (v) is prohibited.

In Polish prohibitive utterances we have found the following exponents used for utterances

with the actor revealed in the sentence surface structure (i) nie ‘not’ + powinien ‘should’;

(ii) nie ‘not’ + należy ‘should’,

(iii) nie ‘not’ + present tense indicative, (iv) nie ‘not’ + future tense indicative,

(13)

(v) nie móc ‘may not’, (vi) nie można ‘may not’,

(vii) nie jest uprawniony ‘is not entitled’, (viii) nie ma prawa ‘has no right’,

(ix) nie wolno ‘must not’,

(x) niedopuszczalne jest (jest niedopuszczalne, nie jest dopuszczalne) ‘is not admissible, is not permissible’,

(xi) zabronione jest ‘is forbidden, is prohibited’.

and the actor not revealed in the sentence surface structure: (i) nie ‘not’ + powinno ‘should’

(ii) nie ‘not’ + należy ‘should’

(iii) nie ‘not’ + present tense indicative (usually passive) (iv) nie ‘not’ + future tense indicative (usually passive) (v) nie można ‘may not’

(vi) nie może ‘may not’ (vii) nie wolno ‘must not’

(viii) niedopuszczalne jest (jest niedopuszczalne, nie jest dopuszczalne) ‘is not admissible, is not permissible’

(ix) zabronione jest ‘is forbidden, is prohibited’

Still, the most frequent method of expressing the prohibition is the present tense indicative. Th e next most frequent exponents of prohibition are nie można and nie należy.

Statury permission

within the meaning of Permission we have distinguished three sub-meanings:

(i) Unlimited permission which is understood here as the right which may be exercised no matter the situation.

(ii) Conditional permission which is understood here as the right which may be exercised only under specifi c circumstances. (iii) External permission which is understood here as the right which

may be exercised under non-statutory instruments such as e.g. contracts, agreements.

(14)

(i) Unlimited permission

actor revealed

(i) have a right (ii) may

(iii) shall be entitled

(i) móc ‘may’

(ii) mieć prawo ‘have a right’ (iii) być uprawnionym ‘be entitled to’

(iv) dopuszczalne jest (jest dopuszczalne) ‘is admissible, is permissible’

may (i) móc ‘may’

(ii) Conditional permission

actor revealed

(i) have a right (ii) may

(iii) shall be entitled

(i) móc ‘may’

may (i) móc ‘may’

(iii) External permission

actor revealed

enjoy a right prawo przysługuje ‘enjoy a right’ nabywać prawo ‘acquire a right’ actor not revealed

the right conferred the existing right the right which exists

prawo powstaje ‘a right is established’ prawo jest ujawnione ‘a right is revealed’

(15)

In general, in Polish permission is expressed by the following exponents of deontic modality:

(i) jest uprawniony (lit. is entitled), (ii) ma prawo (lit. has a right), (iii) może (lit. may),

(iv) wolno jest (lit. it is allowed), (v) dopuszcza się (lit. it is allowed), (vi) zezwala się (lit. it is permitted);

It requires further analysis whether the exponents of weak obligation, that is to say należy, powinno, may also be used as exponents of recommendation.

Th e typical exponents of permission in utterances with the actor revealed in English are the modal verb may and the expression have a right (to do something) as well as the expression shall be entitled. Th e most frequently used exponent of permission in utterances not revealing the actor in the sentence structure is the modal verb may.

Conclusions

To sum up, it is worth stressing that it is typical of Polish and English languag-es of statutory instruments to use the same exponents of deontic modality for expressing various deontic sub-meanings. Consequently, the meaning of the source text cannot be deciphered solely on the basis of the exponents of deon-tic modality used by the legislator. Th us, it requires a thorough knowledge of the legal construction to fi nd the proper meaning of the source text.

Palmer (1999:233) stated that ‘in an overall system of modality it may be best to treat the declarative as the semantically unmarked member of the epistemic system, by which speakers merely present the information available to them, without guaranteeing its truth; it is also, of course oft en but not always, formally unmarked.’ However, the present tense indicative is a typical grammatical expo-nent of obligation and permission in Polish statutory instruments.

Moreover, it seems that the choice of the exponents of deontic modality used in various legal instruments (especially Polish ones) is not intentional, but rather intuitive. Although, present tense indicative remains the most frequently used exponent of deontic modality (obligation and prohibition), the other ex-ponents are used interchangeably. Additionally, the analysis of frequency indi-cates that the distribution of the exponents is random and varies depending on the analysed statutory instruments. Th erefore, we may draw the conclusion that

(16)

the choice of the exponents of deontic modality used in Polish statutory instru-ments is intuitive, and the legislators’ legal idiolects aff ect the fi nal distribution of exponents of deontic modality used in specifi c statutory instruments.

On the other hand, a translator is less likely to make a mistake if he/she used proper translation equivalents for exponents of obligation, prohibition and permission uses in statutory instruments.

Bibliography

Bańczerowski, Jerzy, Pogonowski, Jerzy, Zgółka, Tadeusz, 1982. Wstęp do

językoznawstwa. Poznań: UAM.

Delisle, J. (et al., ed.), 1999. Translation Terminology. Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Grzegorczykowa, R., 2001. Wprowadzenie do semantyki językoznawczej. Warszawa: PWN.

Jędrzejko, E., 1987. Semantyka i składnia polskich czasowników deontycznych. Wrocław: Ossolineum.

Jędrzejko, E., 1988. O tzw. wewnętrznej i zewnętrznej konieczności i jej podstawowych wykładnikach leksykalnych. Polonica 13, (17–27).

Joseph, J.E., 1995. Indeterminancy, Translation and the Law. Translation and the

Law, M. Morris (ed.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing

Company, p. 13–36.

Kaczmarek, K., Matulewska, M., Wiatrowski P., 2008. Methods of Expressing Obligation

and Prohibition in English, Hungarian and Polish Statutory Instruments in the Aspect of Translation – in Quest of Translation Equivalents. (article in press: Peter

Lang Publishing House).

Kiefer, F., 1999. Modality. Concise Encyclopedia of Grammatical Categories. Keith Brown, Jim Miller and R.E. Asher (eds). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Kielar, B. Z., Miler, J., 1993. Th rough the Looking Glass of Translation – the Verb Phrases of the Statutory Clauses in Kodeks Handlowy and Th eir English Renditions. International Forum of Legal Translation 1992. Proceedings. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo TEPIS Polskiego Towarzystwa Tłumaczy Ekonomicznych, Prawniczych i Sądowych., (41–53).

Kierzkowska, Danuta (red.), 2005. Kodeks Tłumacza Przysięgłego z komentarzem. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo TEPIS Polskiego Towarzystwa Tłumaczy Ekonomicznych, Prawniczych i Sądowych.

(17)

Polskiego Towarzystwa Tłumaczy Ekonomicznych, Prawniczych i Sądowych. Lyons, J., 1977. Semantics 1–2. Cambridge University Press.

Lyons, John, 1989. Semantyka 1–2. Warszawa: PWN.

Palmer, F. R., 1999. Mood and Modality: Basic Principles. Concise Encyclopedia

of Grammatical Categories. Keith Brown, Jim Miller and R.E. Asher (eds).

Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Palmer, F. R., 2001. Mood and Modality. Cambridge University Press; 2 edition. Radwański, Zbigniew, 2005. Prawo cywilne – część ogólna. Warszawa: C.H. Beck. Rytel, D., 1982. Leksykalne środki wyrażania modalności w języku czeskim i polskim.

Wrocław: Ossolineum.

Stawecki, Tomasz, Winczorek, Piotr, 2002. Wstęp do prawoznawstwa. Warszawa: C.H. Beck.

Vermeer, Hans J., 2001. Skopos and Commission in Translational Action. Th e Translation Studies Reader, Lawrence Venuti and Mona Baker (eds). London/

New York: Routlege, (221–232).

Wronkowska, S., Zieliński, M., 1997. Zasady techniki prawodawczej, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Sejmowe

Wronkowska, S., Zieliński M., 1993. Problemy i zasady redagowania tekstów prawnych. Warszawa: Urząd Rady Ministrów.

Wróbel, H., 1991. O modalności. Język Polski 3–5, (260–270). Wróblewski, B., 1948. Język prawny i prawniczy. Kraków.

Zieliński, M., 2002. Wykładnia prawa. Zasady. Reguły. Wskazówki. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Prawnicze LexisNexis.

Sources:

British Insolvency Act Childcare Act 2006 Kodeks cywilny

Kodeks postępowania cywilnego Kodeks pracy

Kodeks spółek handlowych Law of Property Act 1925 Louisiana Civil Code

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Uniform Commercial Code

Methods of Expressing Deontic Modality in English and Polish Statutory Instruments

Comparative

Legilinguistics

I n s t i t u t e o f L i n g u i s t i c s

A d a m M i c k i e w i c z U n i v e r s i t y

P o z n a ń , P o l a n d

Volume 1/2009

International Journal for Legal

Communication

TABLE OF CONTENTS

METHODS OF EXPRESSING DEONTIC

MODALITY IN ENGLISH AND POLISH

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS IN THE ASPECT OF

TRANSLATION

Introduction

Purpose of research

Analysed corpora

Method used

Deontic modality in statutory instruments – pure modal

meanings

Statutory obligation

Obligation

Statury Prohibition

Statury permission

Conclusions

Bibliography

Sources: